SoVote

Feb/9/23 10:29:48 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised if he was not tempted to do so. Sometimes in politics, I think people have a nasty habit of exploiting crises or difficult situations to serve their own ends. This time, he had a lucky escape. There are so many crises, issues, failures, boondoggles and comedies of errors going on that he cannot turn them to his advantage in the short term. I would be surprised to hear anyone say that the government is on top of things. If he really was hoping to exploit these crises, it seems like we can add that to his list of numerous failures.

106 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Feb/9/23 10:30:45 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before asking my colleague a question, I would like to remind him of two things. First, he does not have a monopoly on speaking for the Quebec nation. Fortunately, that honour is shared by many of my colleagues in the House. Second, I hope that he also shares the vision of the French philosopher Camus, who reminded us that democracy is not the law of the majority, but the protection of the minority. I am sure that his colleague from Jonquière reminds him of that from time to time. With respect to invoking the notwithstanding clause, there have been several cases of misuse in recent years. We saw that in Saskatchewan and Ontario recently. The government attacked the unions and workers' rights by pre-emptively and inappropriately invoking the notwithstanding clause. Does my colleague agree with me that, as progressives, our first duty is to set guidelines for the use of the notwithstanding clause in order to prevent attacks on workers' right to freedom of association and to collective bargaining?

174 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet

Feb/9/23 10:31:51 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there was a self-congratulatory tone to my esteemed colleague's comments. I can see why he feels a need to defend the minority, because he is the only Quebecker in his party, as opposed to 32 members of the Bloc Québécois. All things being equal, and since everyone's voice deserves to be heard, we certainly do not speak less for Quebec than he does, so we will not remain quiet. I do not think that he remains quiet or hesitates to say what he thinks just because there are 32 members who do not agree with him. The opposite will certainly not happen. The Constitution is intended to provide guidelines for institutions, not to pre-emptively judge how it will be used. In his role as the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, our colleague finds himself in a position where he must serve a group of NDP members who are chronically ignorant about Quebec. He is therefore forced to defend things that we, and many other Quebeckers, find indefensible. It is his judgment against that of the people who will vote when called upon.

194 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/9/23 10:33:04 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague suggested thanking the members of the House. I thank him because he is the first member of the House to mention the threat against our forestry industry, Paper Excellence. This is the first time I have heard anyone talk about this company, which is owned by an Indonesian billionaire and has bought Resolute Forest Products, Domtar Corporation and others such as Catalyst Paper Corporation in my province of British Columbia. This huge company has purchased several pulp and paper companies, but not a single word has been said about it here except by my dear colleague from the Bloc Québécois.

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet

Feb/9/23 10:34:11 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will share that acknowledgement with my colleague from Jonquière. We have raised the issue several times since that transaction, initially in private with the minister responsible. Notwithstanding the harmful effects of the transaction, if this had been an oil company, it would only have taken two shakes of a lamb's tail for Canada to stand up, invoke national security and block the transaction. In this case, however, it is only wood, it is only the forest, and it is only in Quebec, so they do not care. If Bill C‑34 is any good, then it should cover the transaction that is shielding Sinar Mas and forced Uighur labour.

116 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/9/23 10:35:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the notwithstanding clause has been used many times, in particular with respect to the agricultural succession act, the Employment Equity Act, small claims court and the youth court, without anyone having thought to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the notwithstanding clause. Turning to the Supreme Court becomes an option when Quebec wants to defend its culture, its differences, its nation and its values. Is that not highly discriminatory? I would like my colleague to speak to that.

81 words

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet

Feb/9/23 10:36:03 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the difference is that I do not read planted questions in advance, but that is another debate. Since 1982, no other Canadian government has been so intent on interfering in and encroaching on Quebec's responsibilities, especially with regard to language, values and identity. These regular and disrespectful attacks involve litigation, appointments that at a minimum are dubious, the weaponization of political issues and this bad habit of repeating the opposite of the truth. Quebec keeps having to tell them, to put it succinctly, to mind their own business.

91 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Feb/9/23 10:36:57 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am a little surprised to see a Bloc Québécois motion that defends our Canadian Constitution so strenuously. Given my colleague's speech, does the leader of the Bloc Québécois agree with me on the legitimacy of our 1982 Canadian Constitution?

55 words

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet

Feb/9/23 10:37:28 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, can I have another 20 minutes? Even I was still young in 1982, which is when the Constitution was imposed, shoved down the throats of Quebeckers and the René Lévesque government, after the common front shown by the provinces broke down on several issues, as it would do later on. No, there is no legitimacy whatsoever. The notwithstanding clause is the only part of the Constitution that does anything to help preserve who we are and who we have a right to be.

88 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Feb/9/23 10:38:11 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a fundamental constitutional document. It protects the rights and freedoms of everyone in Canada, including Quebeckers. This document is one of the cornerstones of our society. Since it was adopted in 1982, it has demonstrated its flexibility and ability to adapt. Our charter has inspired many other countries— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

81 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/9/23 10:38:50 a.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

5 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Feb/9/23 10:39:03 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I get the sense that the Bloc Québécois members did not like the question I asked their leader. I will continue my speech. Our charter also inspired many other countries around the world, who drafted their own similar constitutions. I am proud that, as a society, we decided to adopt this instrument 40 years ago. Section 33 of the charter, better known as the notwithstanding clause, made a political compromise possible among the disparate entities that made up Canada at the time of its adoption. Section 33 authorizes Parliament or the legislature of a province to derogate from certain sections of the charter, namely those protecting fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights. Simply put, it is a tool that allows governments to short-circuit charter protections. What is clear is that legislation that invokes the notwithstanding clause is violating fundamental rights. Using the notwithstanding clause is allowed, of course, even though the intention was always for it to be used rarely and in exceptional cases. However, in my opinion, the pre-emptive use of the clause is very problematic. By pre-emptively invoking the notwithstanding clause, a government is basically saying that it knows it is violating Canadians' fundamental rights but that it is going to go ahead anyway, without giving the courts a chance to weigh in. Let us be clear. By pre-emptively invoking the notwithstanding clause, a government is saying that it knows it is violating Canadians’ fundamental rights and freedoms, that it knows it is doing so but that it is going ahead anyway, without giving the courts a chance to weigh in. The Prime Minister, our Minister of Justice and other members of cabinet have been clear that our government is concerned with the pre-emptive invocation of the notwithstanding clause, and our federal government is firmly committed to defending the rights and freedoms protected by our charter. This charter is an expression of some of the most fundamental values of Canadian society. It guarantees our rights and freedoms. I dare say that it represents what it is to be Canadian. These rights and freedoms are the very foundation of our country and of our democracy. However, even with these crucial rights, the charter recognizes that they are not absolute, and that is why section 1 exists. Section 1 of the charter provides a workable, pragmatic framework for balancing different rights and freedoms, and it is there because sometimes a government can justify limiting constitutional rights and freedoms. Through decades and decades of jurisprudence, Parliament and provincial legislatures have been engaged in this ongoing dialogue with our courts. The pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause ends that dialogue. It short-circuits the dialogue that is necessary to ensure that our charter is functioning as it should. Our constitutional tradition is one marked by dialogue, mainly between the legislator and the courts. The pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause limits that dialogue by limiting legal debate. When the notwithstanding clause is used pre-emptively, this dialogue and debate become mainly theoretical, because the courts are not given the opportunity to order remedies. It is also important to remember that a strong, independent judiciary is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. The pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause limits the work of our courts, which cannot fully assume their role under our Constitution.

567 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Feb/9/23 10:44:32 a.m.
Watch

Between 2001 and 2017, section 33 was never invoked. The political norm of rare use seemed to prevail and the notwithstanding clause was treated as an exceptional measure. Since 2017, however, there has been a huge rise in provinces invoking the notwithstanding clause to pre-emptively shield their legislation. This has happened in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and there have been threats of its use in Saskatchewan. What is lost in a pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause? Transparency, engagement and accountability. The charter was not intended to save a government from these requirements. On the contrary, the imperative to justify limitations on rights and freedoms serves these very purposes. Proper use of the notwithstanding clause may be consistent with them, but pre-emptive use is contrary to the values that the charter was designed to protect. In the past, the notwithstanding clause was treated as an exceptional measure, but its use is becoming more frequent. I repeat that, although the use of the notwithstanding clause is legal, it is not something that should be taken lightly, because it has the effect of suspending legal protections guaranteed by the Quebec and Canadian charters of rights and freedoms. I believe that a government that uses a remedy of this magnitude must set out the exceptional circumstances that justify the suspension of these legal protections. In closing, I want to point out that all members of the House should consider themselves very lucky to be Canadians and to be able to rely on the rights recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is up to all of us in the House to protect those rights.

277 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Feb/9/23 10:46:33 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way noted that the notwithstanding clause was not used very often until 2017 and onward. I would note that over the past eight years our country has felt broken. We have Roxham Road, inflation is running out of control, a whole host of issues are going on. The Prime Minister has divided the country more than ever. Perhaps the use of the notwithstanding clause has crept up given the actions of the current Prime Minister. Would the member not concede that the Prime Minister has been the most divisive prime minister in Canadian history?

101 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Feb/9/23 10:47:26 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the comment of my colleague is relevant to the debate of today, but allow me to say that provincial premiers across the country make their own decisions about when to invoke the notwithstanding clause. It certainly is up to us in this chamber to ensure the protection of the rights and freedoms of Canadians. I find it surprising that the Conservative Party does not appear concerned with the freedoms of Canadians. It is something about which the government is concerned.

87 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/9/23 10:48:09 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague not think that using the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively will save many years of unnecessary litigation to reach the same conclusion further down the road? Would she not agree that our position is actually quite reasonable? What we are asking Parliament to do is simple. We are asking it to at least respect what is set out in the contract that it shoved down our throats in 1982.

73 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Feb/9/23 10:48:41 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, of course the notwithstanding clause can be used, but when it is used pre-emptively, that does not allow the courts and legislators to have the dialogue that is necessary in a free and democratic society. My colleague appears to be defending clauses in the Constitution while at the same time challenging its legitimacy. He needs to take a position. Either he supports the Constitution or he does not. The Bloc Québécois cannot have it both ways.

89 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Feb/9/23 10:49:35 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is an important discussion, because either we have a charter that protects the rights of citizens or we do not. What we have seen is the willingness of provincial governments to pre-emptively use the notwithstanding clause to target workers and religious minorities and to justify unconstitutional laws, which is deeply concerning. That strips the fundamental rights of citizens and their ability to challenge the provincial governments when they abuse those rights. In watching the outrageous use of this clause, it concerns me that the federal government has sat on the sidelines and told citizens to defend themselves. Is the federal government going to stand up for the principle of the charter or is the charter just some paper document that can be used, annulled or ignored depending on whatever government is in power in the provinces?

140 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Feb/9/23 10:50:40 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern with the rise in provinces across the country pre-emptively using the notwithstanding clause. To his question, it has been successive Liberal governments over the years that have stood up for our charter, that have stood for Canadians' rights and freedoms, and we will continue to do that.

56 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Feb/9/23 10:51:10 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by talking about this big, beautiful country we call Canada, a country blessed with a diverse abundance of riches that make us the envy of the world. Take hydroelectricity from Quebec, for example. It not only meets our energy needs and heats our homes, but it also supplies energy to our neighbours in Ontario and New York State, in the U.S. We also grow wheat and other crops that help feed our planet. We even produce oil that is used to manufacture medical supplies and that continues to heat our homes during our transition to a cleaner, greener economy. Lastly, our waterways nourish our ecosystems and serve as transportation routes for our resources and our intermediate and finished products headed for markets in North America and overseas. However, a country's real strength lies in its citizens' values. Here in Canada, Canadians, including Quebeckers, value community spirit and co-operation. They also espouse democratic values. These values translate to, among other things, a profound attachment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution. Whether in British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec or Ontario, Canadians across the country are tenacious about asserting their rights and freedoms, regardless of what governments may do from time to time. Consider, for example, the late Nicole Gladu, who invoked the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution to assert her right to medical assistance in dying. I must point out that it was a Quebec court that granted her that right under the charter. I believe that we should thank and honour Pierre Elliott Trudeau for his decision to devote his political life to patriating the Constitution and adding the charter, which is one of the most modern laws in the world, in that it recognizes community interests. The charter also includes a notwithstanding clause. It should be noted that this clause cannot be used to violate the rights of official language minorities. I want to stress that point because many people often forget that this notwithstanding clause cannot violate every right, because some are guaranteed by the charter and the Constitution Act, 1982. Since being elected, and even before that, I have never been in favour of invoking the notwithstanding clause, which, by the way, Parliament can do under the Constitution. People seem to forget that. This clause exists and it has a clear objective, namely to allow the federal government or a provincial government to take the time to consider and adjust to a court decision that would invalidate one of its laws in whole or in part. Its application is time-limited, so it is not a blank cheque nor open season. In fact, the use of this notwithstanding clause has to be renewed every five years. There are several aspects of this clause that we could view as democratic. For example, it is not quite the final word, because the clause must be re-invoked every five years. It allows a legislature to temporarily derogate from a court decision. Obviously, this matter is open to debate, but, in my opinion, the notwithstanding clause was intended to allow courts to render judgments and provide opinions based on our legal system's judicial traditions. Moreover, the notwithstanding clause was intended to create a requirement to have an open political debate every five years on the merits of using the notwithstanding clause. In both of the cases that are before the court right now, namely Bills 96 and 21, the Legault government in Quebec used the clause pre-emptively. This pulled the rug right out from under the court. In fact, the court's hands are tied. It cannot do anything. We know that, in the case of Bill 21, the Superior Court of Quebec discussed some aspects of the bill that impede certain rights. However, it admitted that it could not do anything because of the notwithstanding clause. What is problematic about the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is that not only are the court's hands tied, but we cannot have a full debate on the use of the clause, a debate in a legislative assembly in front of the cameras, a debate whose every detail could followed by our media. I find that extremely problematic, and it adds an anti-democratic element to a provision that is undeniably democratic and perfectly legal. When governments use this provision pre‑emptively, whether it is New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec or any other province, one question comes to mind: What are those governments afraid of? Are they afraid of their legal experts, their courts or their citizens? Are they afraid that their citizens might watch the debate on a measure that will take away their rights and that they will change their minds about the measure that the government has put in place with its law? Are these governments afraid of both the lawyers and the public? I will stop there, and I am ready to answer questions.

841 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 157